Re: [Xen-devel] Spurious Acks (was Re: PVH domU patches....)

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

At 09:00 -0400 on 06 Aug (1375779658), Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:00:37AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:21:33 +0100
> > > Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> At 14:43 -0700 on 31 Jul (1375281803), Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> > >> > The latest tree with Tim's acks are at:
> > >> >
> > >> >    git clone git://oss.oracle.com/git/mrathor/xen.git .
> > >> >    git checkout pvh.v10.acked-1
> > >>
> > >> This branch has my Reviewed-by: on
> > >> 1f2087845751569fc55c202ac3265e18c974b0bf (PVH xen: vmcs related
> > >> changes), which I don't remember giving. Please be careful about that
> > >> sort of thing.
> > >>
> > >> There have been a few instances in the past of patches that went in on
> > >> someone else's ack that seem to have sprouted mine (not from Mukesh, I
> > >> should add, and AFAICT through misunderstanding rather than malice).
> > >> In future I am going to revert such patches when I notice them.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >>
> > >> Tim.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok, I misunderstood whey you said the code looked OK, I assumed it was
> > > an implicit ack, as I've seen here in the past. I'll make a note, Tim
> > > doesn't give implicit acks... :)...

That made me go back and look again -- what I said was: 

| If these aren't already committed, you can add my Reviewed-by to all
| except 9, 10, 19 and 23.
[...]
| #19 is probably OK for correctness, though I haven't reviewed the VMCS
| settings in enough detail to be sure they're complete.  My main
| reservation is that it seems to duplicate a bunch of code from the
| HVM VMCS setup.

which doesn't look to me anything like an implicit ack, much less
a Reviewed-by -- in fact I explicitly called out #19 as _not_ being
Reviewed-by.

But yes, I don't give implicit acks.  And I'll try to be clearer in
future when I'm commenting on code that already has a relevant
maintainer's ack, as that seems to be where the confusion arises.
I think I need a way of saying "I found no bugs in this patch but I
still don't like it".

Cheers,

Tim.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel